The NRA is a Cult

[BULLDOG]

You people speak as if the NRA giving money to politicians is wrong or illegal

The NRA doesn't give that much money to politicians, it's focussed more on election spending. Didn't you get that from her clip?

Why does this distinction matter when the point is that the NRA pays a lot of money to gain political influence? Besides, if the NRA gave money to the Trump election campaign then doesn't that essentially mean that it goes to Trump?

Giving to ads supporting the candidate is unlimited. Giving directly to him is limited to $2700.

 

[BULLDOG]

As smart as I am I still watched 12 seconds of it.

12 seconds? Your ADD is getting better. Good for you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You people speak as if the NRA giving money to politicians is wrong or illegal

The NRA doesn't give that much money to politicians, it's focussed more on election spending. Didn't you get that from her clip?

Why does this distinction matter when the point is that the NRA pays a lot of money to gain political influence? Besides, if the NRA gave money to the Trump election campaign then doesn't that essentially mean that it goes to Trump?

It gives the eyes of deniability. The Candidate can always deny the ad. They give 2500 to the Candidates fund but give millions to the Super Pac earmarked to support the Candidate. It's one very, very corrupt system where elections are purchased and Politicians are owned lock stock and barrel.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You people speak as if the NRA giving money to politicians is wrong or illegal

The NRA doesn't give that much money to politicians, it's focussed more on election spending. Didn't you get that from her clip?

Why does this distinction matter when the point is that the NRA pays a lot of money to gain political influence? Besides, if the NRA gave money to the Trump election campaign then doesn't that essentially mean that it goes to Trump?

Giving to ads supporting the candidate is unlimited. Giving directly to him is limited to $2700.

Okay, but I still don't understand why pro gun control advocates keep spewing this as if it's illegal or something.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You people speak as if the NRA giving money to politicians is wrong or illegal

The NRA doesn't give that much money to politicians, it's focussed more on election spending. Didn't you get that from her clip?

Why does this distinction matter when the point is that the NRA pays a lot of money to gain political influence? Besides, if the NRA gave money to the Trump election campaign then doesn't that essentially mean that it goes to Trump?

It gives the eyes of deniability. The Candidate can always deny the ad. They give 2500 to the Candidates fund but give millions to the Super Pac earmarked to support the Candidate. It's one very, very corrupt system where elections are purchased and Politicians are owned lock stock and barrel.

If it was corrupt it would be against the law and it isn't. So I don't see the problem here.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I used to find her amusing on the Daily Show, but I tried watching Full Frontal, it is awful... if you have seen one episode, you have seen them all.

 

[Muhammed]

The cult goes immediately to ad hominems. Can't refute the message attack the messenger.

It is how weak people attempt adult conversation.

The video was nothing but an ad hominem attack in the guise of comedy, jackass.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You people speak as if the NRA giving money to politicians is wrong or illegal

The NRA doesn't give that much money to politicians, it's focussed more on election spending. Didn't you get that from her clip?

Why does this distinction matter when the point is that the NRA pays a lot of money to gain political influence? Besides, if the NRA gave money to the Trump election campaign then doesn't that essentially mean that it goes to Trump?

Giving to ads supporting the candidate is unlimited. Giving directly to him is limited to $2700.

Okay, but I still don't understand why pro gun control advocates keep spewing this as if it's illegal or something.

I posted the original because it's danged funny. Too many takes it seriously. But the message that comes out of it is not one of legality. It does show what may be legal may not be moral.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You people speak as if the NRA giving money to politicians is wrong or illegal

The NRA doesn't give that much money to politicians, it's focussed more on election spending. Didn't you get that from her clip?

Why does this distinction matter when the point is that the NRA pays a lot of money to gain political influence? Besides, if the NRA gave money to the Trump election campaign then doesn't that essentially mean that it goes to Trump?

Giving to ads supporting the candidate is unlimited. Giving directly to him is limited to $2700.

Okay, but I still don't understand why pro gun control advocates keep spewing this as if it's illegal or something.

I posted the original because it's danged funny. Too many takes it seriously. But the message that comes out of it is not one of legality. It does show what may be legal may not be moral.

Why would it not be moral?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The NRA doesn't give that much money to politicians, it's focussed more on election spending. Didn't you get that from her clip?

Why does this distinction matter when the point is that the NRA pays a lot of money to gain political influence? Besides, if the NRA gave money to the Trump election campaign then doesn't that essentially mean that it goes to Trump?

Giving to ads supporting the candidate is unlimited. Giving directly to him is limited to $2700.

Okay, but I still don't understand why pro gun control advocates keep spewing this as if it's illegal or something.

I posted the original because it's danged funny. Too many takes it seriously. But the message that comes out of it is not one of legality. It does show what may be legal may not be moral.

Why would it not be moral?

One citizen should get one vote. One citizen should be able to give the same influence as another citizen. As it stands right now, a small number of citizens can buy influence at a much higher rate than a single citizen. I once asked to talk to a Lt Governor. The first question out of the reps mouth was, who was I representing. I stated, myself. That was one damned short conversation. BTW, it so happens that was a Republican LT Guv. I don't see our Federal Reps to be any different and it really doesn't matter what party. If we can't spend lots and lots of money fast to either keep them elected, get them elected or get them unelected then they don't have much use for any of us. Creating the PACs was the most destructive thing that ever came out of the Supreme Court ever since many states tried to block it. It might be legal but it's certainly immoral.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Why does this distinction matter when the point is that the NRA pays a lot of money to gain political influence? Besides, if the NRA gave money to the Trump election campaign then doesn't that essentially mean that it goes to Trump?

Giving to ads supporting the candidate is unlimited. Giving directly to him is limited to $2700.

Okay, but I still don't understand why pro gun control advocates keep spewing this as if it's illegal or something.

I posted the original because it's danged funny. Too many takes it seriously. But the message that comes out of it is not one of legality. It does show what may be legal may not be moral.

Why would it not be moral?

One citizen should get one vote. One citizen should be able to give the same influence as another citizen. As it stands right now, a small number of citizens can buy influence at a much higher rate than a single citizen. I once asked to talk to a Lt Governor. The first question out of the reps mouth was, who was I representing. I stated, myself. That was one damned short conversation. BTW, it so happens that was a Republican LT Guv. I don't see our Federal Reps to be any different and it really doesn't matter what party. If we can't spend lots and lots of money fast to either keep them elected, get them elected or get them unelected then they don't have much use for any of us. Creating the PACs was the most destructive thing that ever came out of the Supreme Court ever since many states tried to block it. It might be legal but it's certainly immoral.

On the one hand I understand your concern and on the other hand, if every American is given the right to spend money on political ads then we can't very well deny or restrict that same right to larger organizations and lobby groups just because they have more money to spend.

There is nothing inherently immoral about having more money than others and basically what you're saying boils down to: The rich have more money so therefore no one should have that right. But only because the rich have more money. Which implies that those who take advantage of the rights that everyone has and become rich in a free market society should be restricted in some ways. I.E., because they are rich, they should be somewhat constrained or, because they're rich, everyone should be constrained.

I could be right or I could be wrong or maybe I don't fully understand it all but, that's just the way I see it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Giving to ads supporting the candidate is unlimited. Giving directly to him is limited to $2700.

Okay, but I still don't understand why pro gun control advocates keep spewing this as if it's illegal or something.

I posted the original because it's danged funny. Too many takes it seriously. But the message that comes out of it is not one of legality. It does show what may be legal may not be moral.

Why would it not be moral?

One citizen should get one vote. One citizen should be able to give the same influence as another citizen. As it stands right now, a small number of citizens can buy influence at a much higher rate than a single citizen. I once asked to talk to a Lt Governor. The first question out of the reps mouth was, who was I representing. I stated, myself. That was one damned short conversation. BTW, it so happens that was a Republican LT Guv. I don't see our Federal Reps to be any different and it really doesn't matter what party. If we can't spend lots and lots of money fast to either keep them elected, get them elected or get them unelected then they don't have much use for any of us. Creating the PACs was the most destructive thing that ever came out of the Supreme Court ever since many states tried to block it. It might be legal but it's certainly immoral.

On the one hand I understand your concern and on the other hand, if every American is given the right to spend money on political ads then we can't very well deny or restrict that same right to larger organizations and lobby groups just because they have more money to spend.

There is nothing inherently immoral about having more money than others and basically what you're saying boils down to: The rich have more money so therefore no one should have that right. But only because the rich have more money. Which implies that those who take advantage of the rights that everyone has and become rich in a free market society should be restricted in some ways. I.E., because they are rich, they should be somewhat constrained or, because they're rich, everyone should be constrained.

I could be right or I could be wrong or maybe I don't fully understand it all but, that's just the way I see it.

The problem is, the ultra rich get together and spend millions more per person than any one of us. To Us, 2500 or 2700 bucks is a huge investment and won't even get you into the vestment of your congress critter. Meanwhile, the Ultra Rich get the Congress Critter to attend his "Standup" Dinners where he can corner the congress critter and pitch his latest scam. And the Congress Critter had damn well better just do it or the ultra rich will find someone else to replace him that will do it. The Problem is, the creation of the PACs and Super Pacs are the problem. If you think your paltry 25 bucks a year to the NRA buys you any say in the matter, you are sadly mistaken. Meanwhile, Colts Millions earmarked for specific congress critters does. They tell you what to think. If you disagree, that's just too bad. Paying that 25 bucks is just a feel good on your part. The NRA has become a Super Pac and ceased to be a Non Profit decades ago. And I refuse to support any super pac since they are what is causing us to have the crappy government we have at all levels today. And unless we change things, it won't get any better. Oh, and did you know that there are 5 Democrat Congress Critters that also get NRA money? I can't remember who they are but the number is 5. And guess how they vote? Exactly how the NRA tells them to vote. Same goes for the Drug Companies, Oil Companies, and more.

It's even sadder when you learn that the bills that are presented are actually written by the corporations. This is why the Congress Critters don't have any idea exactly what is in them. They've never even read them even when they are the ones that present them. Congress doesn't have the staff to write a 1000 page bill of any kind but the Corporations do. That puppy is 3 months of reading if that's all you have to do.

WE need to shut down the PACs and Superpacs. Or at least force them to publicly list the donors and the amounts and where the money was spent. And then we can vote with our pocket books.

 

[cnm]

Why does this distinction matter

It cleared a point in your question. Nor does the NRA have to contribute directly to Trump's campaign, it can buy as many ads attacking Hillary as it likes as far as I know, likewise ads supporting Trump.

 

[cnm]

Okay, but I still don't understand why pro gun control advocates keep spewing this as if it's illegal or something.

I'd like to see where anyone has done that.

 

[cnm]

If it was corrupt it would be against the law and it isn't. So I don't see the problem here.

Political corruption is legal in the US, one may buy as many politicians as one can afford.

 

[cnm]

There is nothing inherently immoral about having more money than others and basically what you're saying boils down to: The rich have more money so therefore no one should have that right. But only because the rich have more money. Which implies that those who take advantage of the rights that everyone has and become rich in a free market society should be restricted in some ways. I.E., because they are rich, they should be somewhat constrained or, because they're rich, everyone should be constrained.

Jesus.

 

[cnm]

Oh, and did you know that there are 5 Democrat Congress Critters that also get NRA money? I can't remember who they are but the number is 5. And guess how they vote? Exactly how the NRA tells them to vote. Same goes for the Drug Companies, Oil Companies, and more.

Best government money can buy...

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Why does this distinction matter

It cleared a point in your question. Nor does the NRA have to contribute directly to Trump's campaign, it can buy as many ads attacking Hillary as it likes as far as I know, likewise ads supporting Trump.

That wasn't the question. The question was: "Why does this distinction matter when the point is that the NRA pays a lot of money to gain political influence?" Critics of the NRA make much ado about the money they spend to influence a candidate's campaign. That they pay the money for campaign advertisements as opposed to directly to the campaign or to the candidate is simply a matter of information.

I understand that they are not allowed to give more than $2700 directly to the campaign but if, theoretically, they could, you and I both know the narrative would be the same and they'd still be villified.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Okay, but I still don't understand why pro gun control advocates keep spewing this as if it's illegal or something.

I'd like to see where anyone has done that.

I said "...as if...or something."

The fact that NRA critics are making an issue of it suggests to me that they think there is something wrong with it in some kind of way. You yourself said that it was immoral, which I believe falls under the "...or something..." umbrella.

Am I wrong? Did I misunderstand something?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If it was corrupt it would be against the law and it isn't. So I don't see the problem here.

Political corruption is legal in the US, one may buy as many politicians as one can afford.

If that is true then even your paltry $2700 would be considered corruption.